Tuesday, May 27, 2014

A University, A Giant Corporation, or a Cheap Roadside Motel?

By Michael JohnstonCharles A. Dana
Professor of Political Science

Soon we will all receive a letter that, I am told, informs
us we must produce documentation of all our dependents’ status. To prove you’re
married — to cite the example that applies to me — you’ll need to supply a copy
of a marriage license (huh??) and either
a copy of the first page of your federal tax return or of some recent bill
showing your names and current address. What they’ll require for other
dependents, I do not yet know.

Speaking only for myself, for now –
but hoping others share my outlook – I find those demands an outrageous invasion
of privacy and an insult to the entire Colgate community.

Some will
not share that view, and I will admit that the recent email announcement from someone
named Brian Hutzley came at a time when I was feeling even more old and cranky
than usual. But there are two big things that are wrong with this picture.

One
is a principle that has stayed with me since the late 1960s, back when I was young and cranky: if you expect me to
produce personal information and documents you had better have a damned good
reason for doing so, and you had better have clear-cut authority to make such a
demand. I haven’t seen evidence of either in this case.

My wife and
I have been married thirty-eight years as of next month, raising a family and
now enjoying four grandchildren (who seemingly are of uncertain ancestry in the
eyes of our administrators). Neither Betsy nor I have ever been asked to
produce a marriage license for any reason. Now, apparently, a consulting firm
and some jumped-up bean-counters have decided that the benefits we have earned for
twenty-eight years now might have been fraudulently claimed, and that the
burden of proving the contrary rests upon us.

Really
happy to know you trust us, folks.

In the wake
of the announcement I sent the following questions to Mr. Hutzley and President
Jeff Herbst, via a pair of emails:

What language in the University's Human Resources policies,
Faculty Handbook, or other documents empowers you to request the verification
data and documents you propose to collect from us?

How many cases of falsely-claimed benefits has the University experienced over
the past one, five, and ten years?

With respect to change-of-status documents' not having been filed, have you
sent out a general request and reminder that employees update that information?
If not, why not?

When, and by whom, was the decision made to roll out this demand for
documentation after the end of the academic year, after the final faculty
meeting, and during the run-up to a long holiday weekend -- that is, after the
time when community discussions might readily be held, and administrators
subjected to questions?

My understanding is that Colgate already offers benefits to
domestic partnerships. In that light, by what authority and with what
justification do you propose to request a marriage license from anyone else?

With respect to those domestic partnerships, what documentation will be
required of those people? What provisions have you made for those who have
arrived here from jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is still illegal, or
who have not lived in New York long enough to take advantage of our laws, or
who for reasons of their own choosing have decided to remain at the domestic
partnership stage?

What provisions have you made for people whose marriages, and whose dependents'
births, have taken place in other countries where documentation practices may
differ greatly from ours?

Can you please inform me of any financial ties the Bonadio Group (the
consulting firm mentioned above) might have with Colgate Trustees or administrators?
Are any of those people shareholders or otherwise invested in the Bonadio
Group?

Will Colgate administrators, including yourself, be subject to the same
requests for documentation of dependents?

Not long after, I sent an
additional four questions to President Herbst:

Where, how, and with whom did the dependent validation
exercise originate, and -- this is important -- on what precise date was the
decision made to go ahead with the process?

Will you please identify some of the other institutions -- perhaps from our
reference group -- that you say have implemented this "best
practice"?

Will you be producing your own marriage license and other documentation of
dependent relationships?

Will you undertake to ensure that Mr. Hutzley will answer the nine factual
questions I have sent him, and will you tell me the date by which I can expect
a full and truthful response?

Lots of questions there, and I
understand that answering some of them might take time. And yes, as I write we
are still in a long holiday weekend period (more on that point in a moment).
Still, I am not encouraged by the fact that no one in the administration has
acknowledged receiving these questions, which were submitted last week, much
less responded to them in any way.

Ultimately, the reasoning here is
precisely that of those who advocate making voters show photo identification at
the polls: We are going to hassle you about your civil status, and shift the
burden of proof of your right to vote/your bona
fide qualification for dependent benefits, over to you — and we are doing
that to prevent some sort of fraud that we have not even shown exists.

The second deeply
objectionable aspect of these events is what they tell us about University
governance. The documentation proposal was given a pro forma airing before the faculty Benefits Committee, but only
during the White Eagle process — after the end of the term, when faculty and
staff have begun to scatter, and (how convenient for the administration) after
the last faculty meeting. Mr. Hutzley’s email came out during the runup to the
long Memorial Day weekend, when many people are away from campus. As I
understand it, the deadline for producing your papers will fall before the
start of the Fall term, unless some exception is specifically requested.

As it
happened I sent President Herbst another email, protesting the policy itself in
pointed terms. He did respond to that one, with the punchline being "The
direct answer to your question is that you will have to provide the documentation
we requested". So much for collegial shared governance: your only choice
is to obey, or risk losing basic dependent benefits. Why? Because we say so,
that’s why.

Resistance
is futile.

Well, maybe
not yet: a member of the Benefits Committee has agreed to bring my questions to
the attention of Human Resources; maybe some
answers will be forthcoming. As for a more fundamental justification of the new
policy, I doubt we will receive very much beyond vague claims that somehow we
will be saving the University some money.

When I came
to Colgate in 1986 after a decade at a public institution ten times as large, I
found it refreshing to be part of a small academic community that seemed to do
its business in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. Those days are long
gone: we are now apparently subject to the whims of a gang in the Ministry of
Truth who seem to enjoy pretending they are running a huge corporation (with,
now, fantasies about being desk clerks at a cheap roadside motel). Our administration,
by now, is considerably more cumbersome and less responsive than ever was the
case in my ten years at a megaversity. In
place of shared governance and meaningful accountability we now have mountains
of management, precious little leadership, and zero vision or institutional
ambition. This is, after all, an administration that responded to faculty
proposals to enhance our academic profile with…wait for it…zippy new typefaces
and letterheads!

Set aside everything
that bothers me about the documentation demand – I recognize not everyone will
share my views. Those bigger and deeper governance issues remain, and seem (on
the strength of recent events) to be becoming more acute.

It didn’t
have to be this way, and we are not becoming a stronger institution as a
result.